Laserfiche WebLink
<br />;:", <br />- , <br /> <br />~'" <br />t"Ct,; ) <br />"{,'i.~;'~': <br /> <br />-" <br />" <br />'.~ <br /> <br />A series of alternative plans would have called for a second reservoir, <br /> <br />known as Dallas Divide, to be constructed on Pleasant Valley Creek. This <br /> <br />reservoir would have prOVided water for municipal and irrigation uses on <br /> <br />Log Hill Mesa. This increment was deleted from the p~oject plan when it <br /> <br />became apparent that the assumed municipal water needs would not material- <br /> <br />. <br />, <br /> <br />ize and oecause of environmental objections, <br /> <br />Another alternative would have utilized water for a coal fired <br /> <br />thermal generation plant in place of water for supplemental irrigation <br /> <br />in the Uncompahgre Valley. This alternative was not recommended at the <br /> <br />request of the State of Colorado which indicated a preferential use of <br /> <br />water for agriculture over energy development in the project area. <br /> <br />Finally, as an alternative to utilization of surplus water from the <br /> <br />Uncompahgre River, importation of additional water from the Gunnison River <br /> <br />through the Gunnison Tunnel was considered. During periods when the <br /> <br />tunnel was not being fully utilized for its present uses, water would be <br /> <br />conveyed from the Gunnison River for storage at the Dry Cedar Reservoir <br /> <br />on Dry Cedar Creek. This alternative could meet most of the Uncompahgre <br /> <br />Valley needs of the Dallas Creek Project but would not have served all <br /> <br />the project purposes as the proposed plan. Furthernore, it would have <br /> <br />critically limited the period of time available for maintenance of the <br /> <br />Gunnison Tunnel and could not take advantage of surplus flows of the <br /> <br />Uncompahgre River. <br />